Creating a Typology of Temporary Landscapes XRachel Fox 2015

Creating a Typology of Temporary Landscapes

Rachel Fox 2015 Creating a Typology of Temporary Landscapes

Rachel Fox Copyright 2015 Masters Report submitted in partial fulfi llment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA)

Major Professor: Mary Catherine (Katie) Kingery Page, Landscape Architecture

Supervisory Committee: Jon Hunt, Landscape Architecture Laurence Clement, Landscape Architecture

Kansas State University College of Architecture, Planning, and Design Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional & Community Planning Abstract

Temporary landscapes are an emerging project type with in the fi eld of landscape architecture. Pop- up parks, parklets, and temporary art installations have been gaining media attention and changing notions of open space. Landscape architects need to take a more active role in the planning, design, and execution of these temporary landscapes. Peter Bishop describes temporary land use as “an intentional phase” where the “time-limited nature of the use is generally explicit” (Bishop 2012, 5). This research refi nes Bishop’s defi nition by stating temporary landscapes must be intentionally time limited designs of open space.

Currently the unorganized variety of projects has impeded landscape architects’ ability to evaluate and learn from these spaces. This research project seeks to understand and synthesize different characteristics of temporary landscapes. A typology was developed by identifying key themes in literature, composing a carefully curated series of precedent studies, participating in the development of a temporary pop-up park in Wichita, Kansas, and developing a series of diagrams that identify the relationships between temporal types. The products of this research will help planners and designers develop more successful and intentional temporary landscapes.

Contents

Introduction 1 Background 7 Methods 15 Application 21 Precedents 35 Connections 61 Conclusions 75 References 81 Appendix 93

vii List of Figures Chapter 1: Introduction Figure 1.1 Connecting Projects (by Author) Chapter 2: Background None Chapter 3: Methods Figure 3.1 Framework (by Author)

Chapter 4: Critical Application Figure 4.1 Downtown Context and Site (Wichita Downtown Development Corporation (2013) Figure 4.2 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 1 (by Author) Figure 4.3 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 2 (by Author) Figure 4.4 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 3 (by Author) Figure 4.5 Critical Application Framework (by Author) Figure 4.6 Douglas Pop-up Park Charette Drawings (Mercado, Holt, Glastetter, Fox, DeOrsey 2015) Figure 4.7 Douglas Pop-up Park Design Development (Glastetter Mercado 2015) Figure 4.8 Graphic Interpretation of Katherine’s Interview (Glastetter 2015) Figure 4.9 Graphic Interpretation Front Yard Adventures (Glastetter 2015) Figure 4.10 Douglas Pop-up Park Framework (by Author)

viii Chapter 5: Precedent Figure 5.1 Installing Park(ing) Day (Pearson 2007) Figure 5.2 A Place to Park (Rebar 2006) Figure 5.3 Pink Balls on Sainte Catherine Street (Webster 2014) Figure 5.4 Pink Balls Floating along Sainte Catherine Street (Webster 2014) Figure 5.5 Daytime at Project Urban Fabric (British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects 2014) Figure 5.6 Evening at Project Urban Fabric (British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects 2014) Figure 5.7 South Central Farms Farmer (McIntosh 2006) Figure 5.8 Inside the Farm (McIntosh 2006) Figure 5.9 Lets Play (Demoiselle 2 Femmes 2012) Figure 5.10 Imagining a New Place (Demoiselle 2 Femmes 2012) Figure 5.11 Taking a Seat at ReSurfaced (City Collaborative 2014) Figure 5.12 ReSurfaced: A View From Above (City Collaborative 2014) Figure 5.13 A New Times Square (New York City Department of Transportation 2009) Figure 5.14 Times Square: A Place for People (New York City Department of Transportation 2009) Figure 5.15 A Lush View of Urban Meadow Bklyn (XS Space and Farris 2008) Figure 5.16 Urban Meadow Bklyn in Bloom (XS Space and Farris 2008) Figure 5.17 Planters at Jane Warner Plaza (Kusler 2009) Figure 5.18 Enjoying Jane Warner Plaza (Hogan 2011) Chapter 6: Connections

Figure 6.1 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes (by Author) Figure 6.2 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes Common Attributes (by Author) Figure 6.3 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes Connections (by Author) Figure 6.4 Interim Temporary Landscapes (by Author) Figure 6.5 Interim Temporary Landscapes Common Attributes (by Authors) Figure 6.6 Interim Temporary Landscapes Connections (by Author) Figure 6.7 Incremental Temporary Landscape (by Author) Figure 6.8 Incremental temporary Landscape Common Attributes (by Author) Figure 6.9 Incremental Temporary Landscapes Connections (by Author)

ix Acknowledgments

Committee I am very thankful for my committee members who exercised their patience, support, and critique. Katie Kingery Page, Jon Hunt, and Laurence Clement ‘s insight has been essential to ensuring my project’s success. I want to extend my gratitude to all the professors I’ve had in my fi ve years here at Kansas State University. They have challenged me, pushed me, helped me, and taught me a great deal.

Studiomates It has been a wonderful fi ve years. Thank you for your friendship, compassion, laughter, insight, and time. I’m glad to have had the opportunity to get to know each of you.

Friends and Family Thank you for helping me not take myself so serious and for reminding me that there is life outside Seaton Hall. Thank you for your support, love, and understanding.

xi Chapter 1 Introduction X1 2 Introduction

When I fi rst started learning about temporary landscapes I thought they were a passing fad. Was it exciting to see people use abandoned spaces in a new way? Of course. Did I admire the initiative and organization needed to make these spaces successful? Yes, obviously. Was it amazing to see people engaged in their environment? Without a doubt. However, my overwhelming impression was that temporary landscapes were a sub-par replacement for permanent improvement. I considered temporary landscapes to be provisional, a mere substitute for the ‘real thing’ (Temel 2006). Temporary landscapes were a band-aid on a wound needing stitches. I assumed the only value in temporary landscapes was that they could potentially transition into a permanent landscape.

My ill-informed opinion of temporary landscapes quickly changed once I became involved in the development of a temporary landscape in Wichita, Kansas. As part of my internship with the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation (WDDC) I was responsible for developing preliminary designs for a temporary park in downtown Wichita. My research and work on the temporary park, Douglas Pop-up Park, gave me a renewed interest and respect for temporary landscapes. I continued to research temporary landscapes and eventually I chose temporary landscapes as a topic for my master’s report. Temporary landscapes had more substance than I initially expected.

Temporary landscapes are much more than sub-par substitutes for permanent landscapes. Temporary landscapes challenge ideas of permanence and promote adaptable and fl exible design. Temporary landscapes are not band-aids for a larger problem. They are creative solutions that deepen critical discourse in landscape architecture. Most importantly, temporary landscapes provide a unique perspective about the role of time within landscape architecture.

3 As I researched temporary landscapes I came across a wide variety of projects. Some temporary projects lasted for hours, some lasted for months. Some projects were replicated around the world while others maintained one location. There was a large body of excellent temporary landscapes but very limited discussion on how these temporary landscapes related to one another. Projects were isolated and the literature didn’t provide connections between projects.

The lack of connections between temporary landscape projects impedes the landscape architects’ ability to fully evaluate and learn from these spaces. Currently each time a designer creates a temporary landscape they have to go through a process of clarifying what temporary means and helping others understand the range of possibilities for a temporary landscape. This research project develops connections between temporary landscapes in order to assist the landscape architect’s ability to fully understand, execute, and evaluate temporary landscapes (see Figure 1.1). The products of this research are a typology, a framework, a carefully curated series of precedent studies, and a matrix showing connections between temporal types.

Times Square Climb Jump Pink Balls Leap South Central Farms Imagine

Project Urban Jane Urban ReSurfaced PARK(ing) Fabric Warner Meadows Day Plaza Bklyn

Figure 1.1 Connecting Projects (by Author)

4 Research Questions

The design discipline has developed a thorough vocabulary to defi ne different types of permanent landscapes (e.g. park, plaza, square). However, the discipline has not addressed the need for temporal vocabulary. Using an exploratory research process this research addresses the need for a typology in order to better understand how temporary landscapes are related to each other. Understanding the connections between projects is the fi rst step in advancing the landscape architect’s ability to fully understand, execute, and evaluate temporary landscapes. This research addresses three questions:

• What is a temporary landscape?

• What factors are important to organizing temporary landscapes into a typology?

• How will a typology contribute to a better understanding of the phenomena of temporary landscapes? Relevance to the Profession

This research will help landscape architects better understand the specifi c phenomena that result from the wide variety of temporary landscapes. A typology will form the foundation for meaningful conversations and refl ections about temporary landscapes. In order for the typology to be successful it is important that it is accessible and thorough. This report will be published through open access to ensure that it is accessible to wide variety of design professionals. Access to this research will be available through the Kansas State Research Exchange (K-REx). This research includes a well-rounded literature review, carefully curated precedent studies, a matrix describing relationships between temporal types, and a dialogue with community members about the design of a temporary pop-up park under construction in Wichita, Kansas. Through the creation of a typology we can begin to comprehend how, where, and when a landscape architect could be crucial in the design process of temporary landscapes.

5 Boundaries

This section notes the theoretical boundaries of the project as well as the boundaries that exist between my research and my colleagues’ work in a graduate research team at Kansas State University.

Theory This project covers intentionally time-limited designs of open space. Temporary projects that are primarily objects in space are not included in this research. In this report, temporary landscapes refer to spatial transformations rather than artifact based transformations.

This research focuses on public or quasi-public instances of temporary landscapes. This excludes the many temporary landscapes that occur within private gardens or art festivals. Temporary landscapes occurring in private gardens or art festivals were excluded because they have less contextual variety than many of their public peers and require a study of their own.

Colleagues in Research Team My colleagues in the research team, Danielle DeOrsey, Abigail Glastetter, Steven Holt, and Nicholas Mercado, are four graduate students in the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Community Planning (LARCP) at Kansas State University who have conducted research on a wide variety of topics. Although our topics vary they are all focused around a central theme of creative placemaking. Our projects intersected through an opportunity to be involved in a creative placemaking endeavor in Wichita, Kansas. Currently a temporary pop-up park is being developed in the heart of downtown Wichita. As a group, my colleagues and I participated in a design charrette for the Douglas Pop-up Park in Wichita, Kansas. The charrette was crucial to deepening my knowledge of critical issues surrounding temporary landscapes. More detailed information concerning our experience in Wichita can be found in the methods chapter and the Wichita refl ection chapter.

6 Chapter 2 Literature Review X7 The literature review is the foundation of this research. It provides enough background context to begin understanding the phenomena of temporary landscapes. The literature review is composed into three sections. Defi nitions clarifi es the meaning of temporary and temporary landscapes. Developing a Critical Perspective discusses temporary landscapes’ role in challenging permanence, placemaking, experiences, tension, and disposability. The fi nal section, Language and Connection, highlights the need for a clearer language and stronger connections between projects.

8 Definitions What is Temporary?

What do we consider temporary? In a world of constant change and fl ux some may argue that everything could be considered temporary. Buildings rise and crumble. Inhabitants of the city move away to make room for new residents. Streets are rerouted and an allée of trees bloom only to lose its foliage. “Aren’t all urban uses already temporary in nature?” (Kohoutek and Kamleithner 2006, 25).

People are reluctant to label something temporary until postmortem. Peter Bishop comments that “a fundamental problem with temporary activity is that it can only be accurately identifi ed in hindsight….A use is not temporary until it has proved to be so, by disappearing” (Bishop 2012, 5). For the purposes of this project, temporary is primarily defi ned using the work of Bishop: “For the sake of simplicity our defi nition is not based on the nature of the use, or whether the rent is paid, or whether a use is formal or informal, or even on the scale, endurance or longevity of temporary use, but rather on the intention of the user, developer or planner that the use should be temporary” (Bishop 2012, 5). Something is considered temporary if it intends to change.

Defining Temporary Landscapes

Temporary landscapes imply a variety of defi nitions. Mirko Pogoreutz states, “temporary uses are limited in time of their own accord, whereas interim uses are limited from outside by planning that aims at other goals” (Pogoreutz 2006, 77). “Temporary landscapes are places that express current events that may or may not be repeated” (Mayo 2009, 125). Peter Bishop describes temporary land use as “an intentional phase” where the “time-limited nature of the use is generally explicit” (Bishop 2012, 5). For the purposes of this research I refi ne Bishop’s defi nition: temporary landscapes must be intentionally time-limited designs of open space.

9 Critical Perspective Challenging Permanence

Temporary uses and temporary landscapes challenge current planning practices. “Temporary uses achieve, it seems, a good deal of deconstruction work: they fundamentally call planning and even more so, its premises, into question” (Kohoutek and Kamleithner 2006, 25). The recent popularity of temporary spaces has created a renewed interest in planning and building codes. “The uses regulated by building and planning codes seem so natural that architects and planners expend little thought on the specifi c ‘constructedness’ of these uses” (Kohoutek and Kamleithner 2006, 27).

During the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries cities across the globe were radically changing their building and planning laws. The Tenement Housing Act in New York and Jacob Riis’ photography sought to abolish the abysmal living conditions of shanty towns and transient structures (Riis 1901). In many ways these projects accomplished great successes. These changes helped ensure the safety and welfare of a large number of people. One product of these changes however was an implicit negative association with the temporary. “Their general effect is to ensure that buildings are robust and safe but they also make it harder to erect more temporary structures” (Bishop 2012, 14). Permanence became associated with stable and desirable while temporary was relegated to chaos. “For most people, the notion of permanence brings a sense of security and a hedge against risk and the winds of change. Meanwhile there is implicit criticism in ‘short-termism’, while solutions that are labeled ‘temporary’ are deemed to be secondary to more permanent visions” (Bishop 2012,11).

Today planning’s obsession with permanence is being challenged. Scholars and practitioners seem to be more accepting of the concept of a dynamic changing city. The only constant thing in urban life is change. “The city, the trading centre of autonomy, embodies at every moment of its life history an aggregate state, a material that never comes to rest” (Haydn 2006, 67). It seems that “interim use suits the system” (Arlt 2006, 40).

10 Critical Perspective Creative Placemaking

Creative placemaking transforms a space into a place. Spaces are mathematical volumes while places are “interactional concepts” where people interact and react to their environment (Steele 1981, 12). Creative placemaking “leverages the creative potential already present in a place. All places have creative potential just waiting to bubble up. Even while drawing on resources from beyond the community, leveraging local artistic and organizational talent and assets increases the value in a community and the commitment to it, while nurturing an enduring sense of place” (ArtPlace America 2014). Temporary landscapes are a tool for creative placemaking.

Temporary landscapes create a distinct sense of place in a concentrated period of time. “In such in-between times, innovative approaches to landscape intervention provide alternative means of reactivating the city. These are intentionally transient, moving from site to site to accommodate the constantly morphing nature of the city” (Bowring and Swaffi eld 2013, 100). One such example of how a temporary project helped contribute to place making was the Pratissima festival. Pratissima was a temporary art and cultural exposition held in Turin, Italy (Rota and Salone 2014,).Pratissima “contributed greatly in reinforcing and modifying the local identity of the district” (Rota and Salone 2014, 96). While Pratissima is not necessarily a temporary landscape it shows the capacity for temporary projects to contribute to placemaking .

Experience

Temporary landscapes may be criticized for their experiential qualities. Intentionally time-limited designs restrict some of the processes that we appreciate about experiencing a landscape. Corner comments that the experience of a landscape is often a derivative of layering of processes of time (Corner 2002). The dynamics of time “challenge the art and intentionality of landscape architectural meaning” (Corner 2002, 148). While Corner is not making a direct critique of temporary landscapes his beliefs about experience and change over time could be extrapolated to express experiential limits in a temporary landscape.

11 Tension

Temporary landscapes also create and/or reveal tension within many of their environments. This is especially true of temporary projects that are reclaiming “empty” or vacant space. Colomb refl ects that the transition from vacant space into a temporary use is “inherently contradictory and confl ictual, because it changes the way such spaces work and often threatens their very existence by raising investors’ interest in previously neglected areas” (Colomb 2012, 133). In some instances temporary uses have an “inherent tendency to pave the way for profi t-oriented urban redevelopment processes” (Colomb 2012, 147). Disposable

Temporary landscapes are also criticized for their implication that landscapes are disposable. The idea of temporary landscapes being replaced by other needs, especially profi t oriented development, threatens the legitimacy of landscapes in general. The association of “disposable” and “landscape” is obviously a huge threat to the public realm and the profession of landscape architecture. “If temporary uses or seemingly unused spaces are considered primarily a fi eld for experimentation, in order to select from the results only those projects that can be transformed into long-term undertakings, then temporality is conceived negatively from the outset: as a test run that needs to be completed as quickly as possible so that once can focus on stabilization and codifi cation again” (Spiegl and Teckert 2006, 102).

12 Language and Connection Language

The language surrounding temporary landscapes lacks clarity and distinction. A variety of temporal vocabulary and defi nitions of temporary space makes temporary landscapes diffi cult to analyze. Throughout the literature terms like ephemeral, provisional, interim, and temporary seem to be used interchangeably. For example Robert Temel describes temporary as something between ephemeral and provisional (Temel 2006). While Pogoreutz describes temporary as something that is “limited in time of their own accord” (Pogoreutz 2006,77). Yet another Author describes temporary as “those that seek to derive unique qualities from the idea of temporality” (Temel and Haydn 2006, 11).Interim provides equally convoluted defi nitions. Haydn and Temel describe interim uses as “places where there is a gap in the cycle of utilization, which can be used in the short term for other purposes, unusually not with purely economic motives, and multiple uses, which seek to anchor other forms of use alongside the ‘dominant prescribed ones” (Temel and Haydn 2006, 11). Bishop comments that in the United States “interim use has no precise defi nition as a planning term” (Bishop, 44).

13 Typology

In order to better understand and evaluate temporary landscapes we need a more strongly defi ned vocabulary. A typology is one tool that can help clarify the language used to describe temporary landscapes. Typologies are a way of organizing information in order to learn more about our work and contribute to critical discourse that will improve our profession. Typologies perform two actions: They establish a common language and help us evaluate projects.

The creation of a typology is one strategy that can help designers create a common language within the profession. “With a language to talk about such issues, planners and a number of architects have been able to make considered choices about their practice. In landscape architecture, this kind of analysis and debate can help make practitioners conscious of the assumptions that they make in their work, how they are constrained by external forces and their own perspectives, and how they can choose to change” (Crewe and Forsyth 2003, 39).

The creation of typologies can also be a tool for evaluating projects. This is especially critical to our profession because many of the issues we deal with are very complex and interwoven. A typology allows us to look at a range of projects with complex problems and isolate factors that may be initially unobservable. Through the creation of new typologies in landscape architecture we can “chart out areas requiring refl ection or research, direct the education of landscape architects towards distinction in specifi c skills, and make professionals more effective players in the political arena” (Crewe and Forsyth 2003, 49 ).

Conclusion

The literature review was essential to develop a thorough understanding of temporary landscapes. Defi nitions, Developing a Critical Perspective, and Language and Connection establishes a need for stronger language and connections frames the need for this research. By exploring phenomena of temporary landscapes this researcher identifi ed a need for a more systematic way of discussing temporary landscapes.

14 Chapter 3 Methods X15 To understand the connections between temporary landscape projects several task had to be completed fi rst. A majority of these tasks can be divided into two separate strategies. The fi rst strategy, the typology, focused on developing an understanding of the phenomena surrounding temporary landscapes. The goal of the typology strategy was to identify temporal types, identify projects for precedent studies, and to gather information for selected precedent studies. The second strategy, critical application, focused on refi ning the typology through dialogue with a community group and developing a framework for the precedent studies. The two strategies work together to illuminate connections between temporary landscapes.

Eventually the two strategies merge in order to show connections between projects. The precedents identifi ed in the typology strategy are organized into one of three temporal types. The framework developed in the critical application strategy becomes a tool for deconstructing the precedents. The precedents, temporal types, and framework merge in Chapter 6: Connections as a way to show relationships between projects.

It’s important to have both strategies because they provide different perspectives and different ways of obtaining information. The typology strategy is one sided. There is no opportunity to dialogue with the literature. Many of the projects included in the precedent studies no longer exist. Information is from a secondary source. The critical application is two sided. There is an opportunity to receive feedback from the community and designers as the project is being developed. Information is from primary sources.

16 Methods Typology Strategy

The foundation of the typology methods was based on literature review. The purpose of the literature review was to understand the broad range of temporary projects, acknowledge criticism of temporary projects, form a working defi nition of temporary landscapes, understand the driving factors that allow temporary projects to fl ourish, and identify characteristics that will be relevant to the creation of a typology. Through the literature review, I identifi ed several characteristics that greatly infl uenced the different types of temporary landscapes.

The literature review helped to identify three emerging temporal types: event-based, interim, and incremental. The literature review helped me establish working defi nitions of each type. The defi nition of each of the three temporal types was refi ned as I delved deeper into precedent studies and through conversations with my peers and academic committee.

In addition to the literature review an important component of this research was conducting a series of precedent studies. In order to understand each temporal type I completed a set of precedent studies. Originally this study called for one exemplar and four smaller precedent studies for each temporal type. Due to limited depth of information and access, I revised my writing strategy to showcase three exemplars for each temporal type with a more thorough scope. This shift in my process marks a change from quantity to quality in the presentation of each project.

A crucial step in this research was the selection of precedent studies. There are countless temporary landscapes that could be used to fl esh out a typology. However it was impractical to consider creating a precedent study of every temporary landscape. This research called for a strategy for precedent selection. I selected precedent studies based on several criteria. First, projects had to fi t my operational defi nition of temporary landscapes. Second, projects needed to be accessible to the general public. Projects must also be in an urban setting. More importantly projects selected for precedents must also be documented thoroughly. Depth of information and access to information were limiting factors. Finally, selected projects needed to provide diversity to the typology. Projects that were too similar were eliminated, with preference given to the project with more substantial published material.

17 Critical Application Strategy

Critical application involved taking my understanding of temporary landscapes and deepening it with involvement in the development of a pop-up park in Wichita, Kansas. Temporary landscapes are fl eeting moments. It is diffi cult to obtain a great depth of knowledge on many temporary landscapes because they are ephemeral and provide minimal time for thorough analysis. Working on the development of the Douglas Pop-up Park in Wichita, Kansas was an opportunity to gain valuable insight about temporary landscapes that I would not have been able to attain through literature review. Framework

This research created a framework that responds to the unique phenomena of temporary landscapes. Some factors (scale, specifi city of place,) could be used when evaluating any landscape, temporary or permanent. Other factors (repetition, power relationship, and material mobility) are responsive specifi cally to the unique conditions of temporary landscapes. The framework is a result of both the typology’s liteature and precedent reviews and critical application methods.

Scale

Typology Repetiton

Power Relationship

Critical Application Material Mobility

Specificity Figure 3.1 Framework (by Author) of Place

18 Framework Scale Scale is the spatial expanse of the project. The scale of a temporary landscape may be site, block, or district scale. Site scale refers to a fairly contained landscape. Its spatial limits are very clear and easy to identify. Block scale refers to a landscape that encompasses a majority of a block. There are no other developments on the block. District scale refers to a development that crosses multiple blocks and transforms a larger area.

Replication Replication describes whether the project has been replicated and how it’s been replicated. Temporary landscapes may be unrepeated, repeated in the same location, or repeated and relocated. Unrepeated temporary landscapes are those that have not been replicated or relocated. Repeated in same location projects are temporary landscapes that are reproduced in the same location at a later time . Repeated and Relocated projects are temporary landscapes that are reproduced in new locations. These projects may be physically relocated or they may or they may instruct others on how to replicate the design in a new location.

Power Relationship Power Relationship describes the relationship between the temporary landscape creators (designers) and site owners. The relationship between designers and site owners may vary from traditional landscape development. Designers of a temporary landscape may not necessarily have a standard contract or offi cial agreement with the site owners. The four types of power relationships are those where temporary landscape creators have no site rights, appropriated site rights, collaborative rights, and full site rights. No site rights describe temporary landscapes where the project creators have no legal ownership or communication with the property owners. Appropriated site rights describe temporary landscapes where project creators are using sites legally but not in a traditional sense. There is no substantial contact with site owners. Collaborative site rights describe temporary landscapes where the project creators and site owners are working together. Full sight rights describe temporary landscapes where the project creator and the site owner are the same entity.

19 Material Mobility Mobility describes how easy it would be to transform the site to something new. Mobility of materials refl ects how intensively the temporary landscape impacts the physical site. Materials of temporary landscapes may be layered on the site or they may be anchored to the site. Layered materials are those that lie on top of a site. These materials are not site intensive. They are easy to transport and modify. Anchored materials are those that have more permanent, expensive, immobile site furnishings. These materials communicate more investment and site intensive development. Specificity of Place Specifi city of place describes how the design responds to the site. The four terms used are taken from Irwin’s Being and Circumstance Notes Toward a Conditional Art (Irwin 1985). The concepts of the terms remain similar to Irwin’s discussion of sculpture; however, the operational defi nitions have been adjusted to respond to the needs of the landscape subject matter. The four types of specifi city of place are site dominant, site adjusted, site specifi c, and site determined (Irwin 1985). Site dominant temporary landscapes are “independent of site and [have] the potential for placement in many different sites” (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989, 50).Site adjusted temporary landscapes “can also be placed in a variety of sites, but the landscape architect plays a greater role in the correlative process... More site manipulation is entailed in getting the exact fi t and/or in making the transition from one space to another” (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989, 50). Site specifi c temporary landscapes are “designed for a particular site and context using either the correlative or cooperative process” (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989, 50). Site determined temporary landscapes are a “sculptural response to a particular site” (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989, 50). “Here the ... response draws all of its cues (reasons for being) from its surroundings” (Irwin 1985, 27).

20 Chapter 4 Application X21 The purpose of the application section is to develop the framework through involvement with a temporary landscape project that is in process. Critical Application allows for a dialogue and discussion that is not possible with literature. In order to accomplish this goal I needed to fi nd a community that was in the process of developing a temporary landscape.

As I mentioned earlier I previously worked on a temporary landscape when I was employed by the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation (WDDC). After my internship ended the WDDC continued to develop the design and eventually received a grant from the Knight Foundation. The timing of the award coincided with this research’s needs. The application portion of this research is based in the development of the Douglas Pop-up Park in Wichita, Kansas.

22 Douglas Pop-up Park Project Description

The Douglas Pop-up Park is a design for a temporary public space in the heart of downtown Wichita, Kansas. The project is located on the south side of Douglas Avenue between Main Street and Market Street (see Figure 4.1). The site is “not one of Downtown’s most welcoming destinations” (Wichita Downtown Development Corporation 2014). Known to locals as “The Hole” the site came into its current state in “2007, when redevelopment plans by the prior owner fell through (see Figure 4.2- 4.4). The buildings which once provided an urban edge for Douglas Avenue are now gone and the community has been left with the remaining hole on Douglas” (Wichita Downtown Development Corporation 2014). AvAvenenuee DouglasDouguglalas Avenue The current site owners, Bokeh Development, have big plans for the site. Within fi ve years the developers hope to be able to build a new class A offi ce space. However, they would like to see the site activated before they construct their building. “Through the recent grant from the Knight Foundation of the Wichita Community Foundation a temporary Pop-Up Urban Park will be constructed along the Douglas Avenue frontage of this site, which will give vibrancy and add activity to the area. The project consists of fi lling in “The Hole,” with excess fi ll material (dirt) from a nearby development project on the Arkansas River, known as River Vista. After “The Hole” is fi lled and the pop-up park is complete, the site will come to life with the addition of colorful furnishings, planters with trees for shade, and string lights for ambiance at night. The preliminary design for the Pop-Up Urban Park is conceptual and the WDDC will be working with stakeholders in the coming months to fi nalize the plans” (Wichita Downtown Development Corporation 2014). Wichita Downtown Development Corporation Temporary landscapes often involve cooperation between a variety of parties. The Douglas Pop up Park is no exception. While many groups have worked together to build support for the development of Douglas Pop-up Park, the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation (WDDC) has been one of its strongest advocates. The WDDC is a “private non-profi t that focuses on economic development to create a more vibrant downtown”.

23 Main Street Market Street

0 325

Figure 4.1 Downtown Context and Site (Wichita Downtown Development Corporation) Figure 4.2 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 1 (by Author) Figure 4.3 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 2 (by Author) Figure 4.4 Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 3 (by Author) 24 Douglas Pop-up Park: Insight Charrette Process In November 2014, the WDDC was awarded a grant for $146,025 from the Knight Foundation (Wichita Downtown Development Corporation 2014). My colleagues and I were interested in tying the project into our master’s reports and began communicating with the WDDC to understand how and if we could be involved.

During a design charrette on January 16th, 2015 WDDC invited a group of K-State students (including myself) to a meeting with city offi cials, developers, and downtown business owners. The K-State team encouraged inclusion of local residnets; several of which attended. The objective of this meeting was to build on the momentum of the WDDC and explore concepts for the Douglas Pop-up Park. This meeting was crucial in my advancement of a typology.

We broke into teams with an equal distribution of students, professionals, and residents. Each group brainstormed community needs, site possibilities, and critical issues. After brainstorming the groups moved into a drawing phase. Two hours later the groups presented their drawings to the other groups. After everyone presented we discussed general insights from the charrette process. There were many interesting insights but three that seemed especially poignant were replication, material mobility, and specifi city of place. Through the charrette I was able to hear critical feedback related to the development of a temporary pop-up park. My involvement in the charrette directly contributed to the advancement of a conceptual framework for temporary landscapes. Repetition During the charrette, participants discussed the possibility of re-using site furnishing from Douglas Pop-up Park. After the park’s tenure, site furnishing could be relocated to other vacant lots in downtown Wichita. Replicating and relocating the park would give other vacant site an opportunity to be better utilized.

25 Materiality Mobility

Given the time frame of the project, the developers expressed interest in designing a project that would not need concrete footings, extensive electrical improvements, or in-ground irrigation. The owners wished to avoid the necessity of obtaining these permits and incurring greater expense. This is different than most designs for permanent parks. Charrette participants discussed strategies to avoid site intensive design as well as materials that could be easily moved when the park’s tenure is over. Specificity of Place One particularly insightful comment that came about through the charrette was that the project needs to feel specifi c to Wichita. Many precedent images we looked at had similar materials or site elements. A project in Washington, D.C. looked remarkably similar to project in San Antonio. Participants of the charrette communicated that the design of the site and site furnishings should relate to Wichita culture.

Scale

Typology Repetition

Power Relationship

Critical Application Material Mobility

Specificity of Place Figure 4.5 Critical Application Framework (by Author)

26 Douglas Pop-up Park: Charrette

Figure 4.6 shows drawings from the charrette. Students, design professionals, local business owners, city offi cials, and residents came together to critically discuss and develop ideas

for Douglas Pop-up Park. Figure 4.6 Douglas Pop-up Park Charette Drawings (Mercado, Holt, Glastetter, Fox, DeOrsey 2015)

27 28 Douglas Pop-up Park Critical Discussion

The Douglas Pop-up Park ignited critical dialogue in downtown Wichita. While a vast majority of publications have been positive about the pop-up park’s development and the $146,025 it’s bringing into downtown, some people have voiced concern about a temporary park. Dr. Chase M. Billingham, an assistant professor of sociology at Wichita State wrote in an opinion piece in the Wichita Eagle newspaper stating his skepticism (Billingham 2015):

• “Covering the pit with a temporary park may remove an eyesore, but it is no substitute for the construction of new residential and commercial structures that would return true vitality to the area. Even when it is fi lled in, the pit will remain an unnecessary gap in the downtown skyline.”

• “In suggesting that an exciting new park will pull people back downtown, these developers and designers have their logic backward. Parks thrive on activity; they do not create it.”

29 Professor Billingham’s statements refuse to properly acknowledge that this is a temporary park. The temporary pop-up park isn’t taking the place of a building; it’s a stepping stone to use the space effectively until the developers are prepared to construct a new building.

Billingham states that in order to bring “true vitality” downtown Wichita needs more commercial and residential opportunities. According to the WDDC’s 2014 Downtown Devleopment Guide, downtown Wichita could sustain more residential and commercial options (Wichita Downtown Development Corporation 2014). Bokeh Development knows this. Over the past fi ve years, Bokeh Development has developed 115 new residential units and 210,000 square feet of commercial space in downtown Wichita. Bokeh Development has communicated that eventually they do plan to turn the site of the temporary pop-up park into a new Class A offi ce building (Rengers 2014). However until they are ready to develop the building they want to see the site used in a productive and creative manner.

In addition to ignoring the nuances of the Douglas Pop-Up Park, Billingham also provides commentary on his belief that all parks are incapable of generating activity. There is no foundation to back up this statement. Activity in any space, building or open space, depends partially on programming. The plans for Douglas Pop-up Park have already outlined programming opportunities and began engaging business. Michael Ramsey, a partner in Bokeh Develoment, has “already been engaging people at businesses surrounding the future park, and he says they’re showing interest.” (Rengers 2014).

The most frustrating thing about Professor Billingham’s piece is that it refuses to acknowledge that Douglas Pop-up Park is a creative contribution to handling underutilized properties downtown at almost no cost to taxpayers. WDDC has been clear that ideally they want to see a building on the site (Rengers 2014). However they recognize that developers may not be ready to build for a few years. Instead of leaving the property abandoned and empty, they are providing an amenity to downtown. If the Douglas Pop-up Park doesn’t take shape the site will continue its infamy as Downtown’s eyesore. Progress however incremental is still progress.

30 Douglas Pop-up Park Design Development After the charrette, two of my colleagues continued to develop designs for Douglas Pop-up Park as part of their masters’ reports. For two weeks Abby Glastetter and Nicholas Mercado worked together on adapting the site plan for Douglas Pop-up Park based on feedback we heard at the charrette (see Figure 4.7).

At the end of the two week period Mercado and Glastetter stopped working together and shifted their focus to their individual projects. Mercado resumed his focus on creating a public light art installation for the pop-up park and Glastetter conducted a series of ethnographic interviews in order to gain deeper insight into the community needs for Douglas Pop-up Park.

Figure 4.7 Douglas Pop-up Park Design Development (Glastetter Mercado 2015) 31 Reflection Ms. Glastetter’s ethnographic interviews formed a more comprehensive picture of the needs of downtown Wichita. In late January and early February of 2015 she interviewed six residents of downtown Wichita. After conducting interviews Ms. Glastetter analyzed each interview “using the noting and coding process, and then graphically synthesized through an exploratory process of photomontaging. The photomontages [see Figure 4.8 - 4.9] ... are collections of photographs or images compiled into a collage to illustrate concepts and inspirational design ideas” (Glastetter, 2015).

Abby’s engagement with the residents adds an extra layer to the design of Douglas Pop-up Park. Residents were at the original charrette for Douglas Pop-up Park, however they were greatly outnumbered by city offi cials, design professionals, and developers. It is important to involve a large variety of people in the design process. While this often leads to confl ict, it also gives designers a better idea of what is needed for the space. Ms. Glastetter’s ethnographic studies should be seriously considered as the Douglas Pop-up Park moves into its fi nal stages of design development.

Figure 4.8 Graphic Interpretation of Katherine’s Interview (Glastetter 2015)

Figure 4.9 Graphic Interpretation Front Yard Adventures (Glastetter 2015) 32 Douglas Pop-up Park Scale Douglas Pop-up Park is an example of a site scale temporary landscape. The site boundaries are Douglas Avenue and the adjacent property lines. Repetition While Douglas Pop-up Park has not been constructed yet it is likely that the project will be an example of a repeated and relocated temporary landscape. It is the intent of the WDDC that Douglas Pop-up Park will be the fi rst iteration of a process to temporarily activate underused properties in downtown Wichita. Power Relationship

Douglas Pop-up Park is an example of collaborative site rights. The site owners, Bokeh Development, are working with the project’s design facilitators, WDDC. The presence of the Knight Foundation Grant helps leverage the WDDC’s infl uence in the project. In addition to Bokeh Development and WDDC several other groups have a stake in the project. The current plans for Douglas Pop-up Park suggest using food trucks to program the site during the day. Food truck owners would commit to being at the site on certain days and times and would be responsible for cleaning up after themselves and regulating activity. In addition to food truck owners the success of the project also depends on residents’ interest. Outside lunchtime business hours, downtown residents are projected to be one of the primary site users. In order for downtown residents to take ownership of the project it is important that their opinions are consulted in the design process. All parties will need to work together to achieve a design that is benefi cial to both the community and site owners. Material Mobility Douglas Pop-up Park uses layered site materials. From the beginning of the project the developers were very clear that they didn’t want to include the expense of extensive electrical, irrigation, or concrete footings. Their express interest in an non-site-intensive design helped direct the design of the site and site furnishings.

33 Specificity of Place Douglas Pop-up Park is an example of a site specifi c landscape, meaning the project is signifi cantly infl uenced by site. Typically site specifi c landscapes are unrepeated landscapes. Douglas Pop-up Park is an exception. The WDDC’s and Ms. Glastetter’s community engagement show a commitment to ensuring that the design of Douglas Pop-up Park fi ts the needs of downtown Wichita.By observing this project throughout its development I expect Douglas Pop-up Park will be a site specifi c landscape, but this can not be determined until the park design is complete.

Site

Repeated and Relocated

Collaborative Douglas Pop-up Park

Layers

Site Specific

Figure 4.10 Douglas Pop-up Park Framework (by Author)

34 Chapter 5 Precedents X35 The need for this research resulted from a lack of conceptual connections between temporary landscapes. In order to discover connection between projects it was crucial to analyze a collection of temporary landscapes.

The fi rst connection this research established was the development of three distinct temporal types: event-based, interim, and incremental. The initial defi nitions of the three types arose from exposure to literature and refl ection on projects. The defi nitions for each of the temporal types were refi ned through discussion with my colleagues and academic advisors.

I then applied this research to a conceptual framework. The framework provided a structure to guide the precedent studies and to understand the projects more thoroughly. The framework helped dissect projects in order to extract more connections between projects.

The precedent section is organized according to the three temporal types. Each section includes a defi nition of the temporal type and three exemplar projects that best illustrate the characteristics of that type. Each exemplar features a project summary, images, and an in-depth explanation of its framework content. Framework content for all projects can be found in Chapter 6: Connections.

36 37 Event-Based Event-based temporary landscapes are successful because of a short time frame and alternative use of space. Event-based temporary landscapes adapt spaces for a short period of time, typically a month or less. The short time frame contributes to seeing the landscape as a novelty, a ‘limited time only’ landscape. People have a desire to see the landscape before it disappears. Event-based landscapes also thrive because of their unique interpretation of traditional use of space. Event makers push the boundaries of how space is used. Occasionally events makers or organizers will ask for permission to use a space but often they appropriate use of space without offi cial permission. While event-based landscapes can have many different purposes they often ask individuals to reevaluate preconceptions they may have about the built environment.

38 PARK(ing) Day Location: San Francisco PARK(ing) Day is an event based temporary landscape. In 2005 Rebar, a San Franciscan design collective, reclaimed a parking stall and transformed it into public pedestrian space. The mission/ Creator: Rebar purpose of the project was “to call attention to the need for more urban space, to generate critical debate around how public space is created and allocated, and to improve the quality of urban human habitat” (“Park(ing) Day 2014 | About PARK(ing) Day” 2014). With simple mobile materials the group paid the adjacent parking meter and brought in simple temporary materials. The group rolled out a section of turf grass, situated a park bench, and a shade tree in a planter box. The project received a lot of attention and in 2006 PARK(ing) Day was established as an international movement. Rebar used an open source approach to encourage others to creatively participate. The event helped catalyze San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks Movement.

Figure 5.1 Installing Park(ing) Day (Pearson 2007)

Figure 5.2 A Place to Park (Rebar 2006)

39 Scale PARK(ing) Day is a site scale example of a temporary landscape. The landscape exists within the boundaries of a parking stall. Repetition One of the most successful aspects of PARK(ing) Day is its replicability. PARK(ing) Day is an example of a repeated and relocated project. After the fi rst installment of PARK(ing) Day, Rebar, the project’s creators, created an open source manual to help others create PARK(ing) Days. In addition to providing a manual, Rebar also established the third Friday in September as International Parking Day. People across the world replicate their PARk(ing) Day’s initial installment. Power Relationship and Ownership PARK(ing) Day illustrates appropriated site rights. The site, a parking stall, wasn’t designed for a temporary park. The users followed the rules of the parking spot by feeding the meter but used the site in an unconventional way. Rebar appropriated site rights without infringing on legal issues. Mobility of Materials PARK(ing) Day’s materials were layered. Turf grass was rolled out, a bench was carried over, and a tree was brought out in a planter. The site didn’t need to be prepared beforehand and no materials cause damage to the site after their removal. At the end of the parking stall’s two hour limit the installation was dismantled and removed. Specificity of Place Park(ing) Day is an example of a site adjusted landscape, meaning the project is mildly infl uenced by the site. One criterion of site adjusted landscapes is that they are intended for a wide variety of sites but is dependent on the site for visual cues. (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989). Park(ing) Day was designed to be replicated and relocated. This is evident through Rebar’s PARK(ing) Day Manual, which instructs people how to create their own PARK(ing) Day. The manual also instructs designers to respond to site conditions. The manual asks designers to consider the type of parking space, audience, documentation, and environmental conditions (Rebar Group 2011). Park(ing) Day installations have to respond to unique site conditions.

40 Pink Balls Location: Montreal, Quebec, Pink Balls is an event-based temporary landscape in Montreal, Quebec. Pink Balls was designed by Claude Cormier and Associates in 2011. The projected has been repeated in the same location each Canada summer for the past four years. Pink Balls features over 170,000 plastic balls fl oating above St. Creator: Claude Cormier and Catherine Street East (Claude Cormier and Associes 2014). The plastic balls come in three different sizes and fi ve different shades of pink. The landscape extends for over a kilometer in Montreal’s Associates Gay District. The support of Montreal’s Gay District has contributed to the success of Pink Balls. The community was directly involved in the installation of the temporary landscape. “By integrating the community into its manufacturing, assembly and installation, [Pink Balls] helped spur social development on a broader scale. Pink Balls is an example of how temporary landscapes can “help reactivate a neighborhood by giving its people greater control.” (Landscapes Paysages 2013, Figure 5.3 Pink Balls on Sainte Catherine Street (Webster 2014) 30). In addition to involving the community Pink Balls has been a “catalyst for improvement in a neighborhood that was gripped by economic decline” (Landscapes Paysages 2013, 30). “In two years, Figure 5.4 Pink Balls Floating along Sainte Catherine Street (Webster 2014) commercial vacancy rates dropped from 20% to 7%, and other forms of art and design prospered” (Landscapes Paysages 2013, 30).

41 Scale Pink Balls is a district scale example of a temporary landscape. The landscape follows St. Catherine Street East crossing multiple intersections. Repetition Pink Balls is an example of a temporary landscape that is repeated in the same location. The fi rst iteration of the temporary landscape was in 2011. The projected has been repeated in the same location each summer for the past four years. Power Relationship and Ownership Pink Balls is an example of a temporary landscape with collaborative site rights. Claude Cormier and Associates temporary landscape was suspended over a street. The design team had to work with the site owners, the city of Montreal, to make sure their landscape would maintain safety standards. Mobility of Materials Pink Ball’s materials are layered on the site. The temporary landscape is composed of pink balls and a wire that spans the street width. After the summer season the temporary landscape is removed Pink Balls is a temporary landscape that is intended to be modifi ed and transported. Specificity of Place Pink Balls is an example of a site specifi c landscape, meaning the project is signifi cantly infl uenced by the site. One criterion of site specifi c landscapes is that they are not intended for a variety of sites (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989). Pink Balls was intentionally designed for one specifi c site in Montreal. A project similar to this could be replicated elsewhere however it would severely diminish the impact and meaning if the project was divorced from its context in Montreal’s Gay Village. Since the projects inception it “has become a symbol of the Gay Village” in Montreal (Landscapes Paysages 2013, 30).

42 Project Urban Fabric Location: Vancouver, BC, Project Urban Fabric is an event-based temporary landscape in Vancouver, British Columbia. The temporary landscape was commissioned in 2014 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the British Canada Columbia Society of Landscape Architects (BCSLA). After the BCSLA’s Land Summit Conference the Creator: British Columbia temporary landscape was dismantled and is intended to relocate at various sites throughout British Columbia in the following year. Project Urban Fabric was a temporary landscape with collaborative site Society of Landscape rights. BCSLA designers partnered with the site owners, Sheraton Wall Centre, to make the landscape Architects accessible to the public during the conference. Project Urban Fabric uses three colors to represent the “layers of design” (“WLA14: Temporary/Transitory” 2014, 17). Blue objects (movable cube seating, stage, and Adrionack chairs) represent social interaction. Fuchsia objects (overhead ribbon structure) represent physical comfort. White objects (light, water) represent the ephemeral and aesthetic Figure 5.5 Daytime at Project Urban Fabric (British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects 2014) appreciation of public space” (“WLA14: Temporary/Transitory” 2014, 17).

Figure 5.6 Evening at Project Urban Fabric (British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects 2014)

43 Scale Project Urban Fabric is a site scale example of a temporary landscape. The project’s original boundaries were the boundaries of the Sheraton Wall Centre Plaza. As the project moves locations in the next year the scale of the project may change. Repetition Project Urban Fabric is an example of a repeated and relocated project. After the BCSLA’s Land Summit Conference the temporary landscape was dismantled and is intended to relocate at various sites throughout British Columbia in the following year. Power Relationship and Ownership Project Urban Fabric was a temporary landscape with collaborative site rights. BCSLA designers partnered with the site owners, Sheraton Wall Centre, to make the landscape accessible to the public during the conference. Mobility of Materials Project Urban Fabric is an example of layered materials. The site furnishings include movable modular seating, Adirondack chairs, and ribbon. Specificity of Place Project Urban Fabric is an example of a site adjusted temporary landscape, meaning it is mildly infl uenced by the site. Project Urban Fabric is intended for a variety of locations but is dependent on the site for visual cues. At its original location the fuchsia ribbons were wrapped around trees and lighting structures. As the design changes locations in the next year it will need to respond and adjust to the context of new sites.

44 45 Interim

Interim landscapes often occur because of disinterest in a place. Sites used for interim landscapes may be neglected and underdeveloped or they may be sites that have development plans in the distant future. Regardless of site condition, interim landscapes are marked by their change in use and the tension that follows. While change in use may be implicit or explicit, it is well known by key people (be it the developer, site owner, city offi cial, or designer) that the project is not meant to endure. Interim landscapes exist for more than a month. Alternative development interests often replace interim landscapes. This can create tension within communities. Development pressures are often met with hard feelings once a community has become attached to their interim landscape. The time span for interim landscapes is variable and not always explicitly stated.

46 South Central Farms Location: Los Angeles, CA South Central Farms is an interim temporary landscape. After the 1992 Rodney King riots, South Central Los Angeles was left with $1 billion of damage and dozens of blighted areas. One such area was a 14 acre site Creator: South Central Farmers that was transferred to the city through eminent domain. The city had plans to build a trash incinerator on site but was met with intense opposition. The trash incinerator project was abandoned and the city leased the land to Los Angeles Regional Food Bank who let neighboring families farm the land (Irazábal and Punja 2009). Residents began to farm the site in 1996. “Access to the land enabled these families to provide food for their families” (Barraclough 2009, 165). Over 350 families took advantage of this opportunity to grow food and supplement their income, until an eviction notice appeared on the farm’s gate in 2004. The city sold the site back to its previous owner, Ralph Horowitz, without public notice or transparent public proceedings. Over the next two years legal battles ensued. Prominent legal issues that stood out from the proceedings were the lack of transparent public notice, the presences of sales going on without public record, confl icted interests between

Figure 5.7 South Central Farms Farmer (McIntosh 2006) city council members and future site development plans, and “discriminatory legal and planning practices” (Irazábal and Punja 2009, 1). Through a closed door session Horowitz won the land back. Despite fundraising Figure 5.8 Inside the Farm (McIntosh 2006) efforts by the farmers, Horowitz refused to sell the site. The farm was demolished and as of 2008 no further development has occurred.

47 Scale South Central Farms is an example of a block scale temporary landscape. The landscape occupies an entire city block, approximately fourteen acres. Repetition South Central Farm is an example of an unrepeated temporary landscape. While similar conditions have resulted in the development of urban gardens this particular project has not been repeated. Offers to give the farmers new land result in a different project than the original, even if the intended function is the same. Power Relationship and Ownership South Central Farm is an example of a temporary landscape with collaborative site rights initially, then no site rights. South Central Farm has collaborative site rights because for eight years the farmers worked with the LA Regional Food Bank and were encouraged and legally allowed to farm the site. The South Central Farm can also be an example of a temporary landscape with no site rights. During the excessive two year legal proceedings the farmers’ presence on site was not always legal. While the farm was being demolished, police removed farmers from the site. Mobility of Materials South Central Farm’s materials were anchored to the site. Farmers had been cultivating the land for several years before they were aware of the potential of being dislocated. The nature of the site use would not have been feasible without mature vegetation planted in the earth.

Specificity of Place

South Central Farms is an example of a site specifi c temporary landscape, meaning the project is signifi cantly infl uenced by the site. One criterion of site specifi c landscapes is that they are not intended for a variety of sites (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989). South Central Farms was an unrepeated temporary landscape. Urban farms exist elsewhere in the world however they do not share the same scale or narrative that make this project specifi c to this site.

48 Climb Jump Leap Imagine Location: Chicago, IL Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine is an example of an interim temporary landscape in Chicago, Illinois. In 2012 Demoiselle 2 Femme, a community group that works with young women, transformed an Creator: Demoiselle 2 Femme, unkempt lot into an engaging space for the community. In order to understand the needs of the site Metropolitan Planning Council Demoiselle 2 Femme put together a community engagement plan. Young women in Demoiselle 2 Femme went door to door, used social media, and had left a chalkboard near the site for people to write in their ideas. The overwhelming request was a play space. The girl’s received training from a design and build boot camp and began building. The project has been a beacon of light in an area of Chicago that was known mostly for “boarded up homes. Shuttered business. Aimless folk hanging on the corners. Crime” (Chicago Tribune). “Newfound pride for this lot continues to be evident in the way the park has been maintained. People put their trash where it belongs and have been respecting the Figure 5.9 Lets Play (Demoiselle 2 Femmes 2012) area as a safe place for kids” (“Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine,” n.d.).

Figure 5.10 Imagining a New Place (Demoiselle 2 Femmes 2012)

49 Scale Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine is a site scale example of a temporary landscape. The projects’ boundaries are the adjacent property lines. Repetition Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine is an example of an unrepeated temporary landscape. Power Relationship and Ownership Climb Jump Leap Imagine illustrates collaborative site rites. The vacant site had no legal site owner so Demoiselle 2 Femme worked with the community to determine the site’s future (Cook County Property Tax Portal, 2015). Mobility of Materials Climb, Jump, Leap Imagine uses anchored site materials. Demoiselle 2 Femme participants poured concrete to anchor wooden supports for the rope playground. Specificity of Place

Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine is an example of a site specifi c temporary landscape, meaning it is signifi cantly infl uenced by the site. One criterion of site specifi c landscapes is that they are not intended for a variety of sites (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989). Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine is a site specifi c landscape because of the project’s community engagement and narrative. As mentioned earlier the project’s creators, Demoiselle 2 Femme, did signifi cant community outreach. The community identifi ed a need for a safe play space. While the design of the play space could have modeled more traditional playgrounds Demoiselle 2 Femme took the design one step further by layering a metaphor into their design. The design of the playground was “modeled after the Swiss Alps, which are surrounded by confl icting countries, but are considered neutral territory” (Placemaking Chicago 2008). Demoiselle 2 Femme communicated through design that the playground was a safe space for their community.

50 ReSurfaced Location: Louisville, KY ReSurfaced is an interim temporary landscape in Louisville, Kentucky. The primary purpose of this project was to reimagine how the overgrown lot could be used differently. “The ReSurfaced initiative Creators: Henry|McGalliard is exploring creative ways to pre-vitalize these vacant and underutilized spaces by creating low-cost Landscape Architecture, Metro investments that activate the space NOW rather than waiting for big, long-term developments to take shape” (Opportunity Space, n.d.). ReSurfaced began in September 2014 and ran for six weeks Louisville, City Collaborative as a pop-up beer garden and event space. ReSurfaced is an example of an unrepeated temporary landscape. The designers, City Collaborative, worked together with the site owners, Parking Authority of River City, to transform the space. City Collaborative took primary responsibility for leading design and programming the site with activities and events. ReSurfaced primarily used salvaged materials such as shipping containers, wood pallets, large branches, and bright paint. Figure 5.11 Taking a Seat at ReSurfaced (City Collaborative 2014)

Figure 5.12 ReSurfaced: A View From Above (City Collaborative 2014)

51 Scale ReSurfaced is a site scale example of a temporary landscape.ReSufaced is located in a lot “underutilized behind the facades of 615-621 West Main Street in downtown Louisville” (“ReSurfaced: A Pop-Up Plaza on Main” 2015). Repetition ReSurfaced is an example of an unrepeated temporary landscape. It should be noted that at the time this research was published ReSurfaced was less than a year old. It is possible that as the project matures it may be repeated. Power Relationship and Ownership ReSurfaced is an example of collaborative site rights. The designers, City Collaborative, worked together with the site owners, Parking Authority of River City, to transform the space. Mobility of Materials ReSurfaced is an example of layered site materials. The primary site materials of the sit were shipping containers, wood pallets, large branches, and bright paint to transform the site. These materials can be easily modifi ed or transported if the project is repeated in the future. Specificity of Place

ReSurfaced is an example of a site specifi c temporary landscape, meaning the project is signifi cantly infl uenced by the site. One criterion of site specifi c landscapes is that they are not intended for a variety of sites (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989). The design of ReSurfaced responds to the abundance of surface lots in Louisville and the community’s desire to “pre-vitalize these vacant and underutilized spaces” Opportunity Space, n.d.).

52 53 Incremental

Instead of a temporary landscape being replaced with a new use (building, infrastructure, etc.), incremental landscapes are a temporary continuation of open space. Incremental landscapes may be temporary installments (pilot projects) of a larger overall project or ‘saved’ interim landscapes. The key distinction is that they promote continuity of use. Pilot projects are a strategy to temporarily test out new ideas while mitigating risks. ‘Saved’ landscapes are temporary landscapes that faced development pressures but ultimately retained their use through favorable public opinion and activities that are intended to keep them intact.

54 Times Square Location: New York City, NY Times Square is an incremental temporary landscape. In 2009 New York City’s Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) began a pilot project in New York’s iconic Times Square. The project sought Creator: NYC DOT to improve the awkward intersections where two of the city’s grids clashed. A lackluster pedestrian environment as well as frustrating automotive atmosphere called for strategic innovation. Despite its iconic name Times Square didn’t perform as a square. Pedestrians squeezed onto traffi c islands, and trudged along overcrowded sidewalks. A “lack of seating [left] many New Yorkers with no places to rest” (Cornog and Gelinne 2010, 15). The automotive environment was no better. Cars idled in traffi c frustrated with increasing congestion. NYC DOT implemented a six month phase pilot project were they would test out a new design for the project. Using low cost treatments such as paint, large planters,

Figure 5.13 A New Times Square (New York City Department and movable site furniture they began to transform the area. The NYC DOT closely monitored the of Transportation 2009) site and evaluated how the project was working. In February 2010 NYC DOT began to transform the

Figure 5.14 Times Square: A Place for People (New York City temporary landscape into a permanent landscape. Department of Transportation 2009)

55 Scale Times Square is a district scale example of a temporary landscape. The landscape transforms multiple blocks, crossing and changing street patterns. Repetition Times Square is an unrepeated temporary landscape. NYC DOT uses the same design “toolkit” elsewhere; however the project itself hasn’t been repeated or relocated. Power Relationship and Ownership Times Square was an example of a full site rights temporary landscape. The owner of the site (NYC DOT) was also in many ways the project creator. However there are some elements that indicate the relationship could be considered collaborative site rights. The project involved signifi cant cooperation between the NYC DOT and the Times Square Alliance. This cooperation can best be understood by looking at the NYC DOT’s Plaza Program Principles. The NYC DOT Plaza program requires applicants to be non-profi ts and to actively participate in the design, outreach, funding, programming, and maintenance of the site. Mobility of Materials The fi rst phase of the design process used layered materials. The fi rst phase used paint on the ground plane, movable site furnishings, and planters. After the fi rst phase the site transitioned to slightly more intensive materials that were anchored to the site. Specificity of Place Times Square is an example of a site specifi c temporary landscape, meaning it is signifi cantly infl uenced by the site. One criterion of site specifi c landscapes is that they are not intended for a variety of sites (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989). The design of Times Square responds to its context because of the thorough analysis done before the project’s installation. In 2006 Project for Public Space was hired by the Times Square Alliance to develop a better understanding of the space. Project for Public Space used “time-lapse fi lm analysis, activity mapping, tracking and user surveys” to guide the project (Project for Public Spaces 2015).

56 Urban Meadow Bklyn Location: Brooklyn, NY Urban Meadows Bkyln is an incremental temporary landscape in Brooklyn, New York. Urban Meadows Bkyln was designed by XS Space Balmori Associates in 2008. Originally a trash strewn vacant lot, Creator: XS Space Urban Meadows Bklyn now provides 8000 square feet of grasses, wildfl owers, and trees. The corner lot features a “rolling grassy topo, serpentine steel edge holding back a wildfl ower meadow, [and a] dogwood grove” (“The Architectural League of New York | Temporary Landscape and The Urban Meadow” 2015). The project was very well received in the community. “Though it was initially conceived as a temporary landscape, the project had such enormous support from the community that the Parks Department adopted it under the auspices of its Community Garden “Green Thumb” program. “(Balmori and Conan 2010,132). In addition to being a neighborhood amenity the project

Figure 5.15 A Lush View of Urban Meadow Bklyn (XS Space helped improve the ecological condition of the site. Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems and Farris 2008) Research “performed research on the site and its contributions to the overall environment, including

Figure 5.16 Urban Meadow Bklyn in Bloom (XS Space and data on runoff absorbed, carbon emissions offset and amount of air pollutants fi ltered by this specifi c Farris 2008) footprint” (XS Space 2015).

57 Scale Urban Meadows Bklyn is a site scale example of a temporary landscape. The project’s boundaries are the adjacent property lines. Repetition Urban Meadows Bkyln is an example of an unrepeated temporary landscape. Power Relationship and Ownership Urban Meadows Bklyn is an example of a project with collaborative site rights. XS Space worked with the site owners, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, to reinvent transform the plaza from an eyesore to an amenity. Mobility of Materials Urban Meadows Bklyn uses anchored materials. The wildfl ower meadow and dogwood trees are planted in the ground. These materials are intended to be easily modifi ed or transported. Specificity of Place

Urban Meadows Bklyn is a site specifi c temporary landscape, meaning it is signifi cantly infl uenced by the site. One criterion of site specifi c landscapes is that they are not intended for a variety of sites (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989). Urban Meadows Bklyn is not the fi rst project to transform a trash strewn lot into a usable green space. However the plant palette and design could not be copied and pasted into a new site without signifi cant changes.

58 Jane Warner Plaza Location: San Francisco, CA Jane Warner Plaza is an example of an incremental temporary landscape in San Francisco, California. Jane Warner Plaza was collaboratively designed by the San Francisco Department of Public Works and the Castro/ Creator: San Francisco Upper Market Central Business District in 2009. Originally the plaza’s location was a dangerous intersection Department of Planning and between Castro and 17th Streets. Adapting to the changing street design the community decided to use an iterative approach to fi guring out how the new layout could provide a better pedestrian experience. They settled Public Works on using an iterative approach. David Alumbaugh, the director of city design for the San Francisco Planning Department, elaborated further “We’re gradually sliding into making it a park. That’s the beauty of starting with the idea of a temporary fi x (Greco 2012, 17). The project underwent a one year trial period. During this time data was collected in order to adapt and improve the design. “The temporary intervention enables the City to collect and use data to evaluate the project before investing major resources in a space that may or may not prove to be well used or cared for. Based upon real time community feedback, the design for the site evolved. Figure 5.17 Planters at Jane Warner Plaza (Kusler 2009) The fi rst phase of implementation informed the next phase in an iterative process of design intervention” (Bela Figure 5.18 Enjoying Jane Warner Plaza (Hogan 2011) 2014, 152). After the trial period Jane Warner Plaza received an upgrade of more permanent materials such as “concrete planters, upgraded the street furniture, installed a better quality surface” (Greco 2012, 16).

59 Scale Jane Warner Plaza is a district scale example of a temporary landscape. Jane Warner Plaza spans the intersections between Castro and 17th Streets. Projected future plans show the temporary landscape expanding further along Castro and 17th Streets. Repetition Jane Warner Plaza is an example of an unrepeated temporary landscape however; the iterative design process has been replicated in San Francisco’s “Pavement to Parks”’ movement. Jane Warner Plaza was one of the inaugural projects in the “Pavement to Parks” (Castro/Upper Market Community Benefi t District 2015). Power Relationship and Ownership Jane Warner Plaza is an example of collaborative site rights. Designers, the Castro/Upper Market Central Business District, San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Department of Public Works, and San Francisco municipal Transportation Agency worked together. The fi rst iteration of Jane Warner Plaza was designed by Public Architecture. The second iteration of Jane Warner Plaza was designed by the Boor Bridges and Flora Grubb. Mobility of Materials Jane Warner Plaza has layered and anchored site materials. During the trial period site materials were layered. After the trial period Jane Warner Plaza received an upgrade of more permanent materials such as “concrete planters, upgraded the street furniture, installed a better quality surface” (Greco 2012, 16).

Specificity of Place Jane Warner Plaza is an example of a site specifi c temporary landscape, meaning it is signifi cantly infl uenced by the site. One criterion of site specifi c landscapes is that they are not intended for a variety of sites (Wagenknecht-Harte 1989). The fi rst phase of Jane Warner Plaza is a specifi c response to a poorly designed intersection in San Francisco. The design of the plaza had to respond to traffi c patterns, safety standards, and the community invested that were unique to that particular site.

60 Chapter 6 Connections X61 The section illustrates connections between temporary landscapes. The framework is applied to projects in each of the three temporal types (event-based, interim, and incremental). Shared framework attributes are extracted from the projects. These shared attributes are then summarized for each temporal type. By uncovering connections of temporary landscapes we can began to understand the phenomena of temporary landscapes more thoroughly.

62 Connections: Event-Based

Repeated Site and Appropriated Relocated

ip n h o s i t n

i Layers

e io l t t e

a la

c p e

S e R y R r it e il w ob o M P ial Site ter Ma e f Plac Adjusted icity o Specif PARK(ing) Day District

Repeated ale Sc Same tition Location Repe

Power Relationship Event-Based Pink Balls Collaborative M ateri S al M pe obil ci ity fic it y o f P Layers la ce Site Specific Project Urban Fabric Scale R Site epe titi

Po on

S M w

p p e a r e t R

c e e

i r f l Repeated

i a

i a c t

l i

i o

t M n y

y s and o h

o b i f p

i P l

i Relocated

l t a y

Figure 6.1 shows all the projects and framework c e Collaborative attributes for event-based temporary landscapes. Site Layers PARK(ing) Day, Pink Balls, and Project Urban Fabric Adjusted are three event-based temporary landscapes. Figure 6.1 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes (by Author)

63 Repeated Site and Appropriated Relocated

ip n h o s i t n

i Layers

e io l t t e

a la

c p e

S e R y R r it e il w ob o M P ial Site ter Ma e f Plac Dominant icity o Specif PARK(ing) Day District

Repeated ale Sc Same tition Location Repe

Power Relationship Event-Based Pink Balls Collaborative M ateri S al M pe obil ci ity fic it y o f P Layers la ce Site Specific Project Urban Fabric Scale R Site epe titi

Po on

S M w

p p e a r e t R

c e e

i r f l Repeated

i a

i a c t

l i

i o

t M n y

y s and

o h o Figure 6.2 extracts the common framework

b i f p

i P l

i Relocated

l t

a y c

e attributes for event-based temporary landscapes. Collaborative Site Layers PARK(ing) Day, Pink Balls, and Project Urban Adjusted Fabric share similar repetition and material Figure 6.2 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes Common Attributes (by Author) mobility attributes.

64 Connections: Event-Based

Repeated and Relocated

Repetition

Repeated Same Location

Event-Based

Material Figure 6.3 removes the projects and connects Layers Mobillity the framework attributes to the temporal type. Event-based temporary landscapes share similar repetition attributes (repeated and relocated and repeated same location) and material mobility Figure 6.3 Event-Based Temporary Landscapes Connections (by Author) (layers) attributes.

65 Connections Event-based temporary landscapes share two common framework attributes: repetition and material mobility. Event-based landscapes are repeated landscapes. Projects may be repeated in the same location (Pink Balls) or repeated and relcoated (PARK(ing) Day and Project Urban Fabric). Event- based landscapes also share the same material mobility attributes. Layered site materials are used in event- based temporary landscapes. Layered site materials are most appropriate for event-based landscapes because they can be easily relocated, modifi ed, or adapted as the landscape is repeated.

66 Connections: Interim

No Site Rights

Block Unrepeated Collaborative

ip n h o s i t n

i Anchored

e io l t t e

a la

c p e

S e R y r it e il w ob o M P ial Site ter Ma e f Plac Specific icity o Specif South Central Farms Site

ale Sc Unrepeated tition Repe

Power Relationship Interim ReSurfaced Collaborative M ateri S al M pe obil ci ity fic it y o f P Layers la ce Site Specific Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine Scale R Site epe titi

Po on

S M w

p p e a r e t R

c e e

i r f l

i a

i a c t

l i

i o

t M n y y s Unrepeated o h

o b i f p

i P l

i

l t a y

Figure 6.4 shows all the projects and framework c e Collaborative attributes for interim temporary landscapes. South Site Layers Central Farms, ReSurfaced, and Climb, Jump, Leap Specific Imagine are three interim temporary landscapes. Figure 6.4 Interim Temporary Landscapes (by Author)

67 No Site Rights

Block Unrepeated Collaborative

ip n h o s i t n

i Anchored

e io l t t e

a la

c p e

S e R y r it e il w ob o M P ial Site ter Ma e f Plac Specific icity o Specif South Central Farms Site

ale Sc Unrepeated tition Repe

Power Relationship Interim ReSurfaced Collaborative M ateri S al M pe obil ci ity fic it y o f P Layers la ce Site Specific Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine Scale R Site epe titi

Po on

S M w

p p e a r e t R

c e e

i r f l

i a

i a c t

l i i o

t M n Figure 6.5 extracts the common framework y y s Unrepeated o h

o b i f p

i P l

i

l t

a y c attributes for interim temporary landscapes. e Collaborative South Central Farms, ReSurfaced, and Climb, Site Layers Jump, Leap share similar repetition power Specific Figure 6.5 Interim Temporary Landscapes Common Attributes (by Author) relationship, and specifi city of place attributes.

68 Connections: Interim

Repetition Unrepeated

Power Interim Collaborative Relationship

Specificity of Site Place Specific

Figure 6.6 removes the projects and connects the framework attributes to the temporal type. Interim landscapes share similar repetition Figure 6.6 Interim Temporary Landscapes attributes (unrepeated) and power relationship Connections (by Author) (collaborative) attributes.

69 Connections

Interim landscapes share three common framework attributes: repetition, power relationship, and specifi city of place. Interim landscapes are unrepeated temporary landscapes. Interim temporary landscapes usually involve a collaborative power relationship. Cooperation and clear communication between site owners and project creators is integral to interim landscapes. When creators of interim landscapes have no site rights, it leads to confl ict. This was the case during part of South Central Farm’s tenure. The last framework attribute that interim landscapes share is specifi city of place. Incremental landscapes are often site specifi c.

70 Connections: Incremental

District Unrepeated Full Site Layers Rights

ip n h o s i n t Anchored

i

e io l t t e

a la

c p e

S e R y R r it e il w ob o M P ial Site ter Ma e f Plac Specific icity o Specif Times Square Site

ale Sc Unrepeated tition Repe Urban Meadows Power Relationship Incremental Collaborative Bklyn M ateri S al M pe obil ci ity fic it y o f P Anchored la ce Site Specific Jane Warner Plaza Scale R District epe titi

Po on

S M w

p p e a r e t R

c e e

i r f l

i a

i a c t

l i

i o

t M n y y s Unrepeated o h

o b i f p

i P l

i

l t

a y c e Collaborative Figure 6.7 shows all the projects and framework Site Specific attributes for incremental temporary landscapes. Anchored Times Square, Urban Meadows Bklyn, Jane Warner Layers

Plaza are three incremental temporary landscapes. Figure 6.7 Incremental Temporary Landscapes (by Author)

71 District Unrepeated Full Site Layers Rights

ip n h o s i n t Anchored

i

e io l t t e

a la

c p e e R y R r it e il w ob o M P ial Site ter Ma e f Plac Specific icity o Specif Times Square Site

ale Sc Unrepeated tition Repe Urban Meadows Power Relationship Incremental Collaborative Bklyn M ateri S al M pe obil ci ity fic it y o f P Anchored la ce Site Specific Jane Warner Plaza Scale R District epe titi

Po on

S M w

p p e a r e t R

c e e

i r f l

i a

i a c t

l i

i o

t M n y y s Unrepeated o h

o b i f p

i P l

i

l t

a y c e Collaborative Figure 6.8 extracts the common framework Site attributes for incremental temporary landscapes. Specific Times Square, Urban Meadows Bklyn, Jane Anchored Layers Warner Plaza share similar repetition, power Figure 6.8 Incremental Temporary Landscapes Common relationship, and power relationship attributes. Attributes (by Author)

72 Connections: Incremental

Repetition Unrepeated

Collaborative

Power Relationship

Full Site Rights

Incremental

Layers

Material Mobillity

Anchored Figure 6.9 removes the projects and connects the framework attributes to the temporal type. Incremental temporary landscapes share Specificity of Site Specific similar repetition attributes (unrepeated), power Place relationship (collaborative and full site), and

Figure 6.9 Incremental Temporary Landscapes material mobility (transition from layered to Connections (by Author) anchored) attributes.

73 Connections Incremental landscapes share four common framework attributes: repetition, power relationship, material mobility, and specifi city of place. Incremental landscapes are unrepeated landscapes. However incremental landscapes relate to larger movements that share design principles, iterative processes or placemaking toolkits. For example Times Square is part of NYC DOT’s Plaza Program. Urban Meadows Bklyn is part of the Green Thumbs initiative. Jane Warner Plaza is part of San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks program. Incremental landscapes may have collaborative site rights (Urban Meadows Bklyn, Jane Warner Plaza) or they may have full site rights (Times Square). Incremental landscapes use anchored site materials. In some projects (Times Square, Jane Warner Plaza) materials transition from an initial layered material mobility to anchored material mobility. The last framework attribute that incremental landscapes share is specifi city of place. Incremental landscapes are often site specifi c.

74 Chapter 7 Conclusions X75 Before I began this research I was dismissive of temporary landscapes. I thought temporary landscapes were a passing fad and didn’t merit any serious discussion. I would have most likely never given them another thought had it not been for my internship at WDDC. As part of my internship at WDDC I was responsible for developing preliminary designs for a temporary pop-up park. During the design process I researched several different temporary landscapes. By investigating these temporary landscapes I learned something crucial to the focus of this research. My initial apprehension of temporary landscapes was not related to the quality or depth of projects. I was inhibited because of the lack of temporal structure within temporary landscapes. 76 Conclusions

In recent years design professionals have constructed a temporal model of temporary landscapes that does not address the nuances of time. In this model landscapes are considered temporary OR permanent. This “either/or” mentality is not descriptive enough to address the variety of temporary landscapes. Creating a Typology of Temporary Landscapes presents a new strategy for understanding the phenomena of temporary landscapes. This research deconstructs temporary landscapes into three temporal types (event-based, interim, and incremental).

Creating a typology is an appropriate approach to defi ning the temporal structure of temporary landscapes. Typologies help establish a common language between design professionals. This research provides a clear defi nition of temporary landscapes and establishes three temporal types (event-based, interim, and incremental). “With a language to talk about such issues, planners and a number of architects have been able to make considered choices about their practice. In landscape architecture this kind of analysis and debate can help make practitioners conscious of the assumptions that they make in their work, how they are constrained by external forces and their own perspectives, and how they can choose to change” (Crewe and Forsyth 2003, 39).

77 Key Findings

• Temporary landscapes are “intentionally time limited designs of open space”.

• There a three temporal types within temporary landscapes. They are event-based, interim, and incremental.

• Event-based temporary landscapes have well defi ned temporary boundaries. They have very explicit beginning and ending dates. Typically these landscapes last for a month or less. Event- based temporary landscapes share two framework attributes: repetition and material mobility.

• Interim landscapes are temporary landscapes that are intended to change uses in the future. The tenure of these landscapes may be implicit or explicit to the site users. Interim temporary landscapes share three similar framework attributes: repetition, power relationship, and specifi city of space.

• Incremental landscapes have the longest time frame. Incremental landscapes are temporary landscapes that promote continuity of use. These landscapes may be temporary installments (pilot projects) of a larger overall project or ‘saved interim landscapes.’ Incremental landscapes share four framework attributes: repetition, power relationship, material mobility, and specifi city of place.

78 Conclusions Challenges

One of the initial challenges of this project was the limited available information on temporary landscapes. It was challenging to fi nd substantive published bodies of work documenting each project. Potential projects were eliminated form being precedent studies if there was not substantial information pertaining to the project narrative or the conceptual framework. The nine precedent studies presented in this research represent the most thorough information available at this time.

As a design student it was challenging to invest my research efforts in a typology rather than a design. I found a typology challenging because I was less familiar with the product and process. Throughout my education I have had more experience with projects that culminate in a fi nal design rather than a written piece. Ultimately I chose to produce a typology because I wanted to understand how temporary landscapes worked on a larger scale. Specifi cally I wanted to understand how temporary landscapes relate to one another and what they can tell us about the role of time in landscapes architecture. Instead of generating a design for a site I wanted to focus my attention on understanding temporary landscapes as an overall body of work.

79 Moving Foward

As temporary landscapes continue to evolve it is the design profession’s responsibility to develop a deeper understanding of temporary landscapes. This research can be built upon through design application and critical discussion.

This research can be advanced through the application of the temporal types and framework attributes to potential design scenarios. The distinctions between the three temporal types(event-based, interim, incremental) and the conceptual framework attributes for each type can help serve as a decision making tools for future designers considering temporary landscapes. In order to select an appropriate type of temporary landscape, future designers should coordinate the project intent, time frame, and client’s intentions with the temporal types and conceptual framework attributes.

This research can be developed further by design professionals communicating about the power dynamics of temporary landscapes. Temporary landscapes have distinct power relationships that are not typically present in permanent landscapes. The power relationships described in this research are one strategy for understanding the power dynamics of a project. Further research could include information about site owners’ intention, designers’ intentions, and how the community was involved or considered in the project. This could be done through a series of interviews with site owners and designers to understand the intention of both parties and how the community was involved with the development of a temporary landscape.

80 References

X81 82 References

Arlt, Peter. 2006. “Urban Planning and Interim Use.” In Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, edited by Robert Temel and Florian Haydn, 1 edition. Basel: Birkhauser.

ArtPlace America. 2014. “Principles of Creative Placemaking.” ArtPlace America. http://www. artplaceamerica.org/articles/principles-of-creative-placemaking/.

Balmori, Diana, and Michel Conan. 2010. A Landscape Manifesto. Yale University Press.

Barraclough, Laura R. 2009. “South Central Farmers and Shadow Hills Homeowners: Land Use Policy and Relational Racialization in Los Angeles.” The Professional Geographer 61 (2): 164–86. doi:10.1080/00330120902735767.

Bela, John. 2014. “User-Generated Urbanism and the Right to the City.” In Now Urbanism: The Future City Is Here, edited by Jeffrey Hou, Benjamin Spencer, Thaisa Way, and Ken Yocom. Routledge.

Billingham, Chase M. 2015. “Chase M. Billingham: Park Won’t Pull People Downtown.” Kansas. Accessed February 7. http://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article4190379.html.

Bishop, Peter, ed. 2012. The Temporary City. 1 edition. London ; New York: Routledge.

Bowring, Jacky, and Simon Swaffi eld. 2013. “Shifting Landscapes In-Between Times.” Harvard Design Magazine.

Bradley, Matt. 2015. “Project for Public Spaces | How to Bring Life to Vacant Lots.” Accessed February 25. http://www.pps.org/blog/how-to-bring-life-to-vacant-lots/.

Canadian Society of Landscape Architects. 2013. “Pink Balls.” Landscapes Paysages.

Castro/Upper Market Community Benefi t District. 2015. “Jane Warner Plaza: CBD.” Pavement to Parks. http://www.castrocbd.org/index.php/visit-the-castro/jane-warner-plaza.

83 City Collaborative. 2014. ReSurfaced Day. Photograph. http://www.citycollaborative.org/blog/.

Claude Cormier and Associes. 2015. “Pink Balls.” http://www.claudecormier.com/en/projet/pink- balls/.

Colomb, Claire. 2012. “PUSHING THE URBAN FRONTIER: TEMPORARY USES OF SPACE, CITY MARKETING, AND THE CREATIVE CITY DISCOURSE IN 2000s BERLIN.” Journal of Urban Affairs 34 (2): 131–52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00607.x.

Cook County Property Tax Portal. 2015. “142 W 103rd St Chicago, 60628.” Cook County Property Tax Portal. http://www.cookcountypropertyinfo.com/Pages/Pin-Results.aspx?pin=25094270390000.

Corner, James. 2002. “Representation and Landscape.” In Theory in Landscape Architecture: A Reader, edited by Simon Swaffi eld. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cornog, Megan, and Dan Gelinne. 2010. “World Class Streets: New York City Is Transforming Itself into a Metro That Is Friendly to Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Transit Riders. Learn How the Big Apple Is Doing It.” Public Roads. Academic OneFile.

Crewe, Katherine, and Ann Forsyth. 2003. “LandSCAPES: A Typology of Approaches to Landscape Architecture.” Landscape Journal 22 (1-03): 37–53.

Greco, JoAnn. 2012. “From Pop-UP to Permanent.” Planning 78 (9): 14–18.

Haydn, Florian. 2006. “A Material That Never Comes to Rest Concepts and Potentials of Temporary Space.” In Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, edited by Robert Temel and Florian Haydn, 1 edition. Basel: Birkhauser.

“Interview: City Collaborative’s Pat Smith Depaves the Way for a Better Louisville with ReSurfaced.” 2015. Broken Sidewalk. Accessed February 25. http://brokensidewalk.com/2014/resurfaced/.

84 References

Irazábal, Clara, and Anita Punja. 2009. “Cultivating Just Planning and Legal Institutions: A Critical Assessment of the South Central Farm Struggle in Los Angeles.” Journal of Urban Affairs 31 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2008.00426.x.

Irwin, Robert. 1985. Being and Circumstance Notes Toward a Conditional Art. F First Edition edition. Larkspur Landing, Calif: Lapis Pr.

Kohoutek, Rudolf, and Christa Kamleithner. 2006. “Temporary Uses, Deregulation and Urbanity.” In Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, edited by Robert Temel and Florian Haydn, 1 edition. Basel: Birkhauser.

Mayo, James M. 2009. “Temporary Landscapes.” Part of a Special Issue: Time and Landscape 26 (2): 124–35.

New York City Department of Transporation. 2015. “Green Light for Midtown Project.” New York City Department of Transportation. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/broadway.shtml.

Opportunity Space. n.d. “ReSurfaced: A Pop-Up Plaza on Main.” http://beta.opportunityspace.org/ urbanSurgery/profi le/22.

Park(ing) Day. 2015. “About PARK(ing) Day.” http://parkingday.org/about-parking-day/.

Pavement to Parks. 2015. “Jane Warner Plaza.” Pavement to Parks. http://pavementtoparks.sfplanning. org/castro_commons.htm.

Placemaking Chicago. 2008. “Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine.” Placemaking Chicago. http://www. placemakingchicago.com/places/roseland.asp.

Project for Public Spaces. 2015. “Project for Public Spaces | Times Square.” http://www.pps.org/ projects/timessquare/.

85 Pogoreutz, Mirko. 2006. “Urban Intelligence.” In Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, edited by Robert Temel and Florian Haydn, 1 edition. Basel: Birkhauser.

Rebar Group. 2011. “The PARK(ing) Day Manual.” http://parkingday.org/resources/.

Raphael, Craig. 2014. “Project for Public Spaces | Broadway Dreams to Be Realized.” Accessed December 1. http://www.pps.org/blog/broadway-dreams-to-be-realized/.

Rengers, Carrie. 2014. “Knight Foundation Fund Grant Will Create Pop-up Park at Downtown’s ‘pit.’” Wichita Eagle, November 23. http://www.kansas.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/carrie- rengers/article4069068.html.

“ReSurfaced: A Pop-Up Plaza on Main.” 2015. City Collaborative. Accessed February 25. http://www. citycollaborative.org/projects/2015/1/18/resurfaced.

“ReSurfaced: Pop-up Art Space and Beer Garden to Launch next Month.” 2015. Insider Louisville. Accessed February 25. http://insiderlouisville.com/metro/vision/resurfaced-pop-art-space-beer- garden-launch-next-month/

Riis, Jacob August. 1901. How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of New York. Courier Corporation.

Rota, Francesca S., and Carlo Salone. 2014. “Place-Making Processes in Unconventional Cultural Practices. The Case of Turin’s Contemporary Art Festival Paratissima.” Cities 40, Part A (October): 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2014.03.008.

Spaces, Project for Public. 2015. “Project for Public Spaces | Leadership Spotlight: Marisa Novara on Making the Case for Placemaking.” Accessed February 25. http://www.pps.org/blog/leadership- spotlight-marisa-novara-on-making-the-case-for-placemaking/.

86 References

Spiegl, Andreas, and Christian Teckert. 2006. “Tom Waits 4’ 33”.” In Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, edited by Robert Temel and Florian Haydn, 1 edition. Basel: Birkhauser.

Steele, Fritz. 1981. The Sense of Place. First Edition edition. Boston, Mass: Cbi Pub Co.

Temel, Robert. 2006. “The Temporary in the City.” In Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, edited by Robert Temel and Florian Haydn, 1 edition. Basel: Birkhauser.

Temel, Robert, and Florian Haydn, eds. 2006. Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces. 1 edition. Basel: Birkhauser.

“Temporary Can Still Be Valuable.” 2015. The Dirt. Accessed February 20. http://dirt.asla. org/2013/04/16/temporary-can-still-be-valuable/.

“The Architectural League of New York | Temporary Landscape and The Urban Meadow.” 2015. Accessed February 17. http://archleague.org/2014/12/temporary-landscape-and-urban-meadow/.

Turner Trice:, Dawn. 2012. “Roseland Project Is about Hard Work, Not Hairdos.” Chicago Tribune. August 13. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-13/news/ct-met-trice-girls- playground-0813-20120813_1_young-women-roseland-neighborhood-safe-haven.

Ullman, Seth. 2014. “Project for Public Spaces | Broadway Boulevard: Transforming Manhattan’s Most Famous Street.” Accessed December 1. http://www.pps.org/reference/broadway-boulevard- transforming-manhattans-most-famous-street-to-improve-mobility-increase-safety-and-enhance- economic-vitality/.

Wagenknecht-Harte, Kay. 1989. Site + Sculpture: The Collaborative Design Process. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

87 Wichita Community Foundation. 2014. Knight Foundation Fund at Wichita Community Foundation Pledges $296,025 in Grants. Press Release. http://www.downtownwichita.org/user/fi le/ WCFKnightFundGrants2014.pdf.

Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. 2014. 2014 Downtown Developer’s Guide. http://www. downtownwichita.org/user/fi le/2014_Downtown_Developer’s_Guide2.2.pdf.

Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. 2015. “Knight Foundation Grant Will Transform ‘The Hole’ on Douglas Avenue.” Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. http://www.downtownwichita.org/ development-master_city_plan-the_process.php.

World Landscape Architecture Magazine. 2014. “Project Urban Fabric.” World Landscape Architecture Magazine 14 (June).

XS Space. 2015. “Urban Meadow Bklyn.” XS Space. http://xsspace.com/urban-meadow-bklyn/#.

88 Image References

Figure 1.1 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Connecting Projects. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 3.1 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Conceptual Framework. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 4.1 Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. 2013. Aerial of Downtown Wichita. Photograph

Figure 4.2 Fox, Rachel. 2014. Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 1. Photograph.

Figure 4.3 Fox, Rachel. 2014. Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 2. Photograph.

Figure 4.4 Fox, Rachel. 2014. Douglas Pop-up Park Site Photograph 3. Photograph.

Figure 4.5 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Critical Application Framework. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 4.6 Mercado, Nicholas , Steven Holt, Abigail Glastetter, Rachel Fox, and Danielle DeOrsey. 2015. Douglas Pop-up Park Charette Drawings. Pen and Marker on Trace.

Figure 4.7 Mercado, Nicholas and Abigail Glastetter. 2015. Douglas Pop-up Park Design Development. Pen and Marker on Trace.

Figure 4.8 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Douglas Pop-up Park Framework. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 4.9 Glastetter, Abigail. 2015. Graphic Interpretation of Katherine’s Interview. Adobe Photoshop.

Figure 4.10 Glastetter, Abigail. 2015. Graphic Interpretation Front Yard Adventures. Adobe Photoshop.

Figure 4.11 Glastetter, Abigail. 2015. Graphic Interpretation of Hecubus’ Interview. Adobe Photoshop.

Figure 5.1 Pearson, John Lambert. 2007. Installing the Park. Photograph. https://www.fl ickr.com/ photos/orphanjones/1456550946/.

Figure 5.2 Rebar. 2006. Park(ing)Day_2006_5. Photograph. https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/ rebarartcollective/2284858964/.

89 Figure 5.3 Webster, Tony. 2014. Aires Libres on Rue Ste.-Catherine. Photograph. https://www.fl ickr. com/photos/diversey/14601741877/.

Figure 5.4 Webster, Tony. 2014. Aires Libres on Sainte-Catherine Street. Photograph. https://www.fl ickr. com/photos/diversey/14807269111/.

Figure 5.5 British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects. 2014. Project Urban Fabric (23). Photograph. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.749104011807090.1073741837.111568 438893987&type=3.

Figure 5.6 British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects. 2014. Project Urban Fabric (1). Photograph. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.749104011807090.1073741837.111568 438893987&type=3.

Figure 5.7 McIntosh, Jonathan. 2006. South Central Farm 4. Photograph. http://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/South_Central_Farm#mediaviewer/File:South_Central_Farm_4.jpg.

Figure 5.8 McIntosh, Jonathan. 2006. South Central Farm 24. Photograph. http://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/South_Central_Farm#mediaviewer/File:South_Central_Farm_24.jpg.

Figure 5.9 Demoiselle 2 Femmes. 2012. Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine - Built. Photograph. http://www. placemakingchicago.com/places/roseland.asp.

Figure 5.10 Demoiselle 2 Femme’s. 2012. Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine - I Would Love a Place To... Photograph. http://www.placemakingchicago.com/places/roseland.asp.

Figure 5.11City Collaborative. 2014. ReSurfaced Day. Photograph. http://www.citycollaborative.org/ blog/.

Figure 5.12 City Collaborative. 2015. ReSurfaced on Main St in Louisville. Photograph. https://www. fl ickr.com/photos/131104066@N03/16443262482/.

90 Image References

Figure 5.13 New York City Department of Transportation. 2009. Times Square: After. Photograph. https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/nycstreets/4173689335/.

Figure 5.14 New York City Department of Transportation. 2009. Times Square: After. Photograph. https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/nycstreets/4173686507/.

Figure 5.15 XS Space, and Julie Farris. 2008. Urban Meadow Bklyn - Lush Meadow. Photograph. http:// xsspace.com/urban-meadow-bklyn/?slide=3.

Figure 5.16 XS Space, and Julie Farris. 2008. Urban Meadow Bklyn - Yellow Flowers. Photograph. http://xsspace.com/urban-meadow-bklyn/?slide=3.

Figure 5.17 Kusler, Brian. 2009. More Work on the 17th Street Plaza. Photograph. https://www.fl ickr. com/photos/briankusler/3526264297/.

Figure 5.18 Hogan, Mark. 2011. Castro Plaza. Photograph. https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/ markhogan/6343555100/.

Figure 6.1 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Event-Based Temporary Landscapes. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 6.2 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Event-Based Temporary Landscapes Common Attributes. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 6.3 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Event-Based Temporary Landscapes Connections. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 6.4 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Interim Temporary Landscapes. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 6.5 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Interim Temporary Landscapes Common Attributes. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 6.6 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Interim Temporary Landscapes Connections. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 6.7 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Incremental Temporary Landscape. Adobe Illustrator.

91 Figure 6.8 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Incremental temporary Landscape Common Attributes. Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 6.9 Fox, Rachel. 2015. Incremental Temporary Landscapes Connections. Adobe Illustrator.

92 Appendix

X93 94 Framework Table Scale Repetition

Repeated Repeated Site Block District Unrepeated Same Location and Relocated PARK(ing) Day

Pink Balls

Event-Based Project Urban Fabric

South Central Farms

ReSurfaced Interim Climb, Jump, Leap, Imagine

Times Square

Urban Meadows Bklyn

Incremental Jane Warner Plaza

95 Power RelationshipMaterial Specificity of Place Mobility fi c No Site Full Site Site Site Rights Appropriated Collaborative Rights Layers Anchored Dominant Site Adjusted Site Speci Determined

96